From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56585) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QN2wk-0000C4-P8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 09:07:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QN2wj-0002G5-Ko for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 09:07:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46211) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QN2wj-0002Fv-Ce for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 09:07:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4DD515F9.1020902@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:07:05 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4DD3D236.90708@siemens.com> <4DD3D95E.2060105@redhat.com> <4DD3E1B3.3020405@siemens.com> <4DD3E47F.9060104@redhat.com> <4DD3E782.8090208@siemens.com> <4DD3E8D6.6090807@redhat.com> <20110519090851.GD28399@redhat.com> <4DD4DE8E.8030402@redhat.com> <20110519091404.GE28399@redhat.com> <4DD5029D.6000700@redhat.com> <20110519115405.GG28399@redhat.com> <4DD505C4.6010604@redhat.com> <4DD50B17.7000205@siemens.com> <4DD511FB.3080901@redhat.com> <4DD51413.1050202@siemens.com> <4DD51468.7050509@redhat.com> <4DD51531.7000701@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <4DD51531.7000701@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Memory API List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: qemu-devel , Gleb Natapov On 05/19/2011 04:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-05-19 15:00, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 05/19/2011 03:58 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>> > >>> Eventually we may make the memory API a sub-API of qdev. I don't want > >>> to start with that however, the change is large enough already. > >> > >> Touching all devices again at that point to change the way they register > >> regions may not be the best approach. I would try to consolidate the > >> refactoring work that affects the majority of device models. > > > > The risk is that the entire work will be stalled if it requires too much > > effort. > > Then we could still switch one gear down, converting at least some > exemplary devices completely to demonstrate that the API changes fit > into the big picture. My plan is: - post RFC v1 with updated API in patch form - RFC v2 with implementation + significant fraction of PC devices coverted - PATCH v3 with full conversion an elimination of the old API -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function